“Thank God for the Deep State”

Old and busted: the Deep State is a silly conspiracy theory.

New hotness: the Deep State is real and its treachery is magnificent.

Former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin – sitting next to former CIA Director John Brennan – admits an attempted coup is underway and laughs about it. Thanks for the campaign ad, bone heads.

This entry was posted in American politics. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to “Thank God for the Deep State”

  1. classical_hero

    Another rake for M0nty.

  2. Steve trickler

    John Brennan –needs a punch to the head. Couple of knuckles.



  3. struth

    The arrogance of the ignorant totalitarian left wing elite as it tells you it knows better because it is a public servant.

  4. Iampeter

    Impeachment is not a coup. The whole reason the process exists is for congress to be able to undo what they deem to be a mistake by voters for whatever reason they choose.

    Not that democrats are rushing to impeach their best President in a long time.

    This is Alex Jones-level nonsense.

  5. Old School Conservative

    Probably worth a post of its own, but also highly relevant to any discussion about the Deep State in Australia.
    Just a few excerpts from today’s Australian:

    The Weekend Australian can reveal that Mr Abbott was asked to register as an agent of foreign ­influence one day before he ­addressed CPAC. The conference was held in Australia for the first time in August and included prominent international speakers including Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage and British political activist Raheem Kassam.

    The former prime minister ­refused the request, labelling it ­“absurd” and saying “senior officials of the commonwealth have better things to do with their time”.

    The government’s crackdown on foreign influence has been ­attacked by legal experts including Sydney University’s Anne Twomey, who warned it could force thousands of people, including authors, academics and publishers, to register as agents of other countries.

    The letter to Mr Cooper, sent by Sarah Chidgey, the deputy secretary of the Integrity and International Group, advised him to provide all documents “detailing any understanding or arrangement between LibertyWorks and the ACU”. She asked for invitations to the event, correspondence with speakers as well as the transcripts and recordings of the ­addresses. It noted that failure to comply with the order within 14 days carried a maximum penalty of six months’ jail.

    In his reply, Mr Cooper said the department “appears less like the defender of freedom and more like that of the old East German Stasi”.

    “You hold a gun to our head and demand information that we do not have,” he wrote.

    He told The Weekend Australian: “I will not be complying with this notice despite the threat of criminal prosecution and jail time. I established LibertyWorks to argue against this type of ­government control over speech and citizens.

  6. Chris M

    They need to be hung.

    In a democracy this is as bad as it gets, incarceration is not sufficient.

  7. Shy Ted

    At least America has POTUS. We have…. I’ll get back to you on that.

  8. Iampeter
    #3199628, posted on November 2, 2019 at 7:33 am

    Impeachment is not a coup. The whole reason the process exists is for congress to be able to undo what they deem to be a mistake by voters for whatever reason they choose.

    The above is the exact opposite of the truth. Surprise surprise it’s from Iampeter.
    In fact the founders debated long and hard how to avoid congress removing a president for political reasons. They knew the process might be politicized.
    That’s why they narrowed the definition for reasons to impeach to “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”


    Today, impeachment remains as a rarely used process to potentially remove the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States” if Congress finds them guilty of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-the-founders-thought-about-impeachment-and-the-president

    How does one so clueless comment so confidently about things he knows so little about? Fascinating.

  9. cohenite

    Iampeter
    #3199628, posted on November 2, 2019 at 7:33 am

    Look at that, 2 fat sacks of treasonous shit are defended on this thread by another sack of poisonous shit.

  10. Suburban Boy

    Impeachment is not a coup.

    Nor is creating false documents to spur a two-year-long investigation of a President.

    Nor is perjury in the FISA court to obtain authorisation to spy on the President and (prior to the election) his campaign.

    Nor is a civil servant providing a false report of misconduct by the President with the connivance of the President’s political opponents.

    Not is it a cabinet-level officer directing her subordinates to block implementation of a new President’s policy.

    Nor is it rogue judges issuing nationwide injunctions to stop the implementation of the lawful policies of a President, even when the injunctions are later overturned by the Supreme Court.

    Nor is threatening to secretly record a conversation with the President in order to get material to have him removed from office under the 25th Amendment.

    As all right-thinking people know, a coup only happens then soldiers with tanks smash through the gates of the White House, round up all inside and remove the President from the Oval Office at gunpoint.

  11. Candy

    “… and remove the President from the Oval Office at gunpoint.”

    That is what Lefties dream about, along with assassination.

  12. JC

    The whole reason the process exists is for congress to be able to undo what they deem to be a mistake by voters for whatever reason they choose.

    FMD, the imploder is an imbecile. A president can only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. It’s categorically stated in the constitution, the same one the asylum rat was praising yesterday. If impeachment succeeds in the lower house, the senate then acts judicially, voting to either concur with the charges brought in the lower house or does not find the charges amount to those crimes etc. Imploder, suggesting a president can be removed at the whim of congress is laughably wrong.

    This is the same idiot suggesting Christianity is not free association but an example of collectivism.

  13. JC

    Aside from imploder’s laughable stupidity, Brennan looks mighty uncomfortable at the beginning when the bald twerp is talking up the deep state. You seem him wincing.

  14. cohenite

    You seem him wincing.

    Nah, that is just his bowel cancer symptoms.

  15. Dr Fred Lenin

    Congress to correct a mistake by the voters? Oh right !the career liars know better than the voters who pay them? Was that what the Brexit shambles in Westminster were betraying their country to an unelected foreign power For? The old names for them was traitors or quislings and they were excecuted . No doubt the globalist fascist decromats soros owns are correcting something soros doesnt like ? For a fee of course .

  16. Words like treachery and treason being thrown about like you lot are Emperor Palpatine, LOL.

    Very Nixonian.

  17. Also remember Felix “Dzerzhinsky” Kruell was in here yesterday saying that Trump ought to be impeached to collect evidence (how perverse) and because he “demeaned the office!”, such vomitous, far left pearl clutching nonsense.

  18. “It’s very Nixonian to complain about Congress misusing and misinterpreting a constitutional power”

    Little buddy, it’s not even close. If we’re on Mars, your idea is past the Kuiper belt.

  19. struth

    Words like treachery and treason being thrown about like you lot are Emperor Palpatine, LOL.

    Very Nixonian.

    And phrases like TDS are thrown around here a lot more when you turn up.
    It’s called relevance .Describing the situation at hand etc.

  20. Tel

    The above is the exact opposite of the truth. Surprise surprise it’s from Iampeter.
    In fact the founders debated long and hard how to avoid congress removing a president for political reasons. They knew the process might be politicized.
    That’s why they narrowed the definition for reasons to impeach to “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    You are attempting to explain something to Iampeter by using references and evidence.

    That won’t go far. It’s been attempted before you know.

  21. candy

    You seem him wincing.

    Because he was embarrassed that their actual thoughts were put into words, more like it.

    Walking up to Capitol Hill and doing their duty responding to a higher call sounds like removing Trump at gunpoint, somewhat, in a sense.
    The other day Trump said something about being shot, so I think it is something he and family must worry about at times. These ex-CIA dudes are enabling crazies.

  22. Iampeter

    In fact the founders debated long and hard how to avoid congress removing a president for political reasons. They knew the process might be politicized.
    That’s why they narrowed the definition for reasons to impeach to “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    So, to avoid a President being removed for political reasons they narrowed the reasons down to purely non-legal, political reasons?

    Also, the site you quoted has no idea what it’s talking about either. E.g.:

    Today, impeachment remains as a rarely used process to potentially remove the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States” if Congress finds them guilty of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    That’s not how impeachment works. The President doesn’t have to be guilty of any crime. Congress doesn’t make that determination anyway. They just hold the vote to impeach and the Senate determines whether this is well founded or not.
    Reasons for impeachment “High Crimes and Misdeamenor” are not legal terms and are left for Congress to determine.

    He even quotes the relevant bit from the Federalist Papers:

    They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused

    As usual conservatives are so clueless they can’t even understand what they are quoting.

    How does one so clueless comment so confidently about things he knows so little about? Fascinating.

    Oh the lack of self awareness required to write that…

  23. struth

    So thick it’s amazing.

  24. That’s not how impeachment works. The President doesn’t have to be guilty of any crime. Congress doesn’t make that determination anyway. They just hold the vote to impeach and the Senate determines whether this is well founded or not.
    Reasons for impeachment “High Crimes and Misdeamenor” are not legal terms and are left for Congress to determine.

    No you idiot, it just means that if you are impeached for reasons other than a crime that you cannot be convicted, only removed from office.

    The idea that “high crimes and misdemeanors” has no meaning at all in a written constitution is beyond parody, you fat head leftist idiot.

  25. Percy Popinjay

    force thousands of people, including authors, academics and publishers, to register as agents of other countries

    Right, so does someone here want to claim that the likes of the Persian Dwarf, Boob Carr and Keating are not exactly that?

  26. Percy Popinjay

    BTW, what the f*ck is Fatty Trump supposedly being impeached for?

    All this hysterical bloviating is so f*cking tiresome and ridiculous I can’t be bothered even trying to keep track of it.

  27. Iampeter

    This is the same idiot suggesting Christianity is not free association but an example of collectivism.

    Um…you do realize that you can freely choose to be a collectivist, right?
    That the determining factor of whether an ideology is collectivist or not has nothing to do with whether people can join it voluntarily or not…?

    Man you are dumb. Anyway, I’ll let you get back to your ranting and raving…

  28. stackja

    More than two months after the official filed his complaint, pretty much all that’s known publicly about him is that he is a CIA analyst who at one point was detailed to the White House and is now back working at the CIA.

    But the name of a government official fitting that description — Eric Ciaramella — has been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings, as well as in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not involved in the impeachment inquiry. Fearing their anonymous witness could be exposed, Democrats this week blocked Republicans from asking more questions about him and intend to redact his name from all deposition transcripts.

    RealClearInvestigations is disclosing the name because of the public’s interest in learning details of an effort to remove a sitting president from office. Further, the official’s status as a “whistleblower” is complicated by his being a hearsay reporter of accusations against the president, one who has “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate” — as the Intelligence Community Inspector General phrased it circumspectly in originally fielding his complaint.

    Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

  29. Scott Osmond

    When the voters return DT and cleanse the house with the electoral equivalent of fire and steel they won’t understand why. Because everyone they know supported impeachment. Just like no one they new voted for DT in 2016. The penalty of living in a bubble is that from time to time reality comes along and smacks you up the side of the head.

  30. cohenite

    No, the pompous prick troll may have a point when it quotes from the Federalist:

    They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused

    Trump has divided the US: into on one side, snowflakes, poisonous, egoistic unelected bureaucrats who hate the electors and the US, brain-dead media activists, academic shits who have poisoned the minds of gullible young, impressionable students, sundry weirdos who identify as anything but normal humans, condescending billionaires who must be now waking up to the fact they will be the first sacrificed when and if the demorats get back in and the usual band of commie rats; and on the other side, normal sane humans.

    Fuck of monty you fat little turd.

  31. Boambee John

    I look forward to all the wakademics involved in the various Confucious Institutes and the (useless) United States Study Centre receiving their letters and registering themselves accordingly, as well as providing the names of their contacts and copies of all correspondence with them.

  32. Zatara

    Another little tidbit just surfaced about the most recent “whistleblower” Ciaramella.

    An Obama holdover White House staffer, it seems he may have fallen for a Trump administration canary trap back in May 2017, got busted, and was booted out for leaking.

    He promptly went back to work at the CIA, by whom he was apparently planted in the White House in the first place.

    Will be interesting to see how that story develops, or not.

  33. Zatara

    suggesting a president can be removed at the whim of congress is laughably wrong.

    Turnabout being fair play in that bizarro world, it must be acceptable for the President to send the Army in to arrest and remove members of Congress at whim if he deems it necessary to “undo mistakes made by the voters”.

  34. struth

    This is the same idiot suggesting Christianity is not free association but an example of collectivism.

    Um…you do realize that you can freely choose to be a collectivist, right?
    That the determining factor of whether an ideology is collectivist or not has nothing to do with whether people can join it voluntarily or not…?

    It’s quite the reverse you religious illiterate.

    You chose to join for one, and are not made to, and Christianity promotes individualism and individual responsibility………………….and here is the very important point, to god, not to other Christians.
    Judgement is made after death, so you are free to do as you wish here on earth, and will be judged accordingly AFTER DEATH.
    And by the way, judged on how you treat all men, not just Christians.
    A Christian god tells you that , you are free to decide your path in life.
    It is the polar opposite of other religions in this respect and the basis of the freedom and prosperity of the west today, and although I am not a deeply religious Christian, I can see quite clearly that defending Christianity is defending freedom.
    It’s the only religion worth fighting for.
    History proves it.
    Especially since the bible was taken from the elites and translated.
    Proof that it is the basis of freedom lies in the fact that it is the only religion the left cannot tolerate.
    Once government gains total control, they ban all religion, but they go for Christianity first.
    What does that tell you, you feeble half wit?

    You are a lefty or you enable leftism with your distain for a religion you know nothing about, and with an ignorance of history that must be born of a pure stubbornness in refusing to learn.

  35. struth

    And hee’s one moe thing fo you tic tac bain to mull over.
    Humans ae eligious.
    Their religion will be followed.
    Most smart arsed atheists who reckon they don’t need religion are found worshipping government .

    You think it’s better to have the god you follow in the next life or controlling you here……………..because no matter what ignorant theory you hold the truth is you are going to get one or the other, so chose carefully.

  36. Iampeter

    Stop derailing threads you raving crackpot.

  37. Boambee John

    Iampeter
    #3199983, posted on November 2, 2019 at 2:59 pm
    Stop derailing threads you raving crackpot.

    Pot? Kettle?

    Is it true that bicycle gearing systems were named after 1ampmeter?

  38. JC

    Um…you do realize that you can freely choose to be a collectivist, right?
    That the determining factor of whether an ideology is collectivist or not has nothing to do with whether people can join it voluntarily or not…?

    Man you are dumb. Anyway, I’ll let you get back to your ranting and raving…

    You fucking moron. Free association means exactly that. You are free to associate with a group of like minded people, be it joining an antique car club or a religious group.

    You don’t have the choice of opting out in a collectivist group.

    Everything you say here is ranting and raving that people aren’t as pious as you, you wrongolgist.

    Return your computer to the orderly.

  39. Iampeter

    Yep you heard it hear first folks. Because people can voluntarily join communist parties it means communism must be individualistic.

    Real big brains at work here.

Comments are closed.